The Supreme Court has dismissed the writ petition filed on the qualifications of the officers of the Gen-G Incident Investigation Commission of 23 and 24 Bhadra and explained it. A full bench of three judges has said that the statements made on social media before their appointment to the commission do not raise questions about impartiality, but the work they do will establish the legitimacy of the commission.

Advocate Bipin Dhakal had filed a writ petition questioning the qualifications of the commission of inquiry officials. While delivering the verdict on the writ petition, a full bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Sharma, Nahakul Subedi and Nripadhwaj Niraula explained in detail the qualifications of the commission officials and whether or not their opinions can be made public in advance. The Supreme Court had ruled on Poush 11, 2082 to dismiss the writ petition. The government had formed the commission of inquiry under the leadership of former judge Gauri Bahadur Karki on Asoj 5. In the coming days, a directive order has been issued in the name of the government to appoint the commission of inquiry officials in important matters such as conducting inquiries into matters of public importance so that the impartiality and neutrality of the officials are not questioned and public trust and institutional credibility of the commission's work can be maintained.

The full text of the judgment states that the officers of the Inquiry Commission formed under the Inquiry Commission Act, 2026 must act impartially and without prejudice, and only if they act in such a way will the justification for the formation of the commission be established and the admissibility, implementation, and credibility of the commission's report be established.

'Although the views expressed publicly by the Chairperson of the Commission, Gauri Bahadur Karki, raise questions about his impartiality and neutrality, it does not appear that the respondents lack the qualifications prescribed by law to be appointed to the posts of Chairperson and member of the Commission,' the full text states.

Whether or not to accept the responsibility of investigating and submitting a report on the views he has publicly expressed is a matter of personal morality, and the person concerned himself is appropriate to make a decision in accordance with his moral conscience,' the full text of the Supreme Court states.

‘Even if the writ petition is dismissed, from now on, while appointing officials of the Commission of Inquiry on important matters such as conducting inquiries into matters of public importance, a directive order has been issued in the name of the Government of Nepal, the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers to make appointments in a manner that does not raise questions about the impartiality and neutrality of the officials and that public trust and institutional credibility in the work of the Commission can be maintained,’ the judgment said.

Even in judicial practice, as long as the appointee is legally qualified and no real bias, conflict of interest or abuse of power is proven in his performance of work, the decision to accept or reject the appointment is left to the self-restraint and personal morality of the individual, the judgment said.

‘Publicly expressing conclusive opinions on a matter before a decision or investigation has been made is a situation that undermines the trust that the subsequent process will be conducted with an open mind,’ the full text of the judgment states. ‘In the present dispute, the issue of whether or not the Chairperson of the Commission accepts the appointment appears to be morally questionable and even if he acts impartially, his actions may not appear impartial.’